Jump to content

Russia, China, or Middle East?


TCPeppyTc

Recommended Posts

Some people say that If the U.S. stopped meddling in the affairs of other countries then none of the above...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would, though I think it is naive. I mean to some extent sure, but us " not meddling" will not be enough to stop bad people who want to take us over, and take away our guns, our Jesus and our Freedoms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Direct threat, none of the above. Several terrorist groups around the world, with the highest concentration being in the middle east, don't wish the US too well, but lumping an entire region into the "a threat to us"-box because of that is stupid.

Indirectly, first and foremost trough outcompeting the US economicaly, I'd until recently have said China, but the economic growth they've had in recent years is allready starting to stagnate. All the old superpowers keep declining, and no new ones seems poised to take their place.

First and foremost, the biggest threat to the US is its own stupidity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would, though I think it is naive. I mean to some extent sure, but us " not meddling" will not be enough to stop bad people who want to take us over, and take away our guns, our Jesus and our Freedoms

My point is that the constant U.S. invention in other countries affairs only fuels the hatred people have towards the U.S. worldwide and makes the situation worst by encouraging more of these attacks. U.S. popular support in many other countries is declining because of America being the "bully of the world".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would, though I think it is naive. I mean to some extent sure, but us " not meddling" will not be enough to stop bad people who want to take us over, and take away our guns, our Jesus and our Freedoms

So how's that "separation of the church and the state" thing going for you

Right now, America's biggest threat is America, and for many of the reasons implied by everything you've said here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it is unlikey that Russia/ china will invade or do an EMP attack?

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

none of them.

Not Russia

Not the middle east

not China

Next question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, the biggest threat to the US is its own stupidity.

As much as I hate to admit it as a proud 'Murican, this is a decent point.

 

 

So it is unlikey that Russia/ china will invade or do an EMP attack?

Possible reasons as to why this question exists;

-Movies

-Call of Duty/Other FPS game

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my personal opinion, the US is not really under any great military threat from any national power. Other problems sure, but not anything military-wise.

However, I'd keep an eye on India and China. These two massively populous nations have had tensions dating back as far as the 1940s, and have had smaller scale military action against each other on several occasions in the past. In recent times, these two countries are supposed to have reconciled their disputes, but tension remains. Each country suspects the other of nefarious activity, and are constantly suspicious of each other. India in particular in more recent years has grown increasingly more paranoid, believing China to be supplying its arch-rival Pakistan, and has militarized extremely heavily with it's growing economy, mostly by buying up tons and tons of Russian hardware.

If ever there was a contemporary scenario ripe for major nation vs. nation conflict, this is it. Sorry U.S.A. it can't always be about you. Though if India and China do happen to go into conflict, it'll most likely be as a proxy war within smaller, far less powerful countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry U.S.A. it can't always be about you.

When the question is "What country poses a threat to us (as in an inhabitent of the USA is posing the question)" it kinda does.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

China, but by proxy. If some serious shit goes down in Korea, the chaining alliances could cause WWIII.

A lot of things have to go very wrong for the Middle-East to start WWIII, but as the world approaches peak-oil, it isn't impossible. But it isn't a powder keg like Korea. It is very likely that after Kim Jong Il dies, his youngest son will take over. I guarantee that will spark a coup, and shit will get very nasty over there. A civil war in the DPRK could cause someone to get desperate and do something stupid, like sinking a South Korean Ship or shooting down a plane, which could re-spark war on the entire Korean Peninsula. The US is aligned with the South, the Chinese the Norh. And Russia shares a border with the North, too, so Russian involvement is also possible.

Any US action in Korea will be likely staged in Japan. The DPRK has missiles that can hit Japan, and the Chinese may become very interested in trying out their new supercarriers they're currently building. No doubt in my mind that if war sparks in Korea, the Sea of Japan will be full of Chinese ships. Japan could very well become a target for the Chinese, and possible the Russians. Both countries have rather nasty histories with the Japanese. It is also worth noting that the US has confirmed that China's new anti-ship missiles could sink a Nimitz carrier if they land a direct hit. What is to stop China from selling these to the DPRK?

Plus, the Chinese have the US by the economic balls. China is rapidly growing its economy enough that it is no longer inconceivable that the Chinese could embargo the US. Hello Depression. This is one of many reasons the US government should take steps to discourage off-shoring of manufacturing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia I believe has more-or-less retired from active large scale military action. Most of their newly developing military tech, like the Suhkhoi Pak-FA fighter, is being made specifically for export. For the foreseeable future at least, I see Russia as more likely to be a supplier of arms and equipment to far more politically/militarily desperate customers, reaping the benefit of their war-profits without getting their hands too dirty. Then again, this may put them at-odds with certain warring factions when it happens.

China I think is beginning to be less and less tolerant of the DPRK and it's inflated military ambitions. Also, they don't want to give Japan an excuse to rebuild their military capabilities. North Korea and their latest antics have made the Japanese increasingly restless to get off the U.S. military's leash and stand up for themselves militarily, which they are quite capable of. If the DPRK does do something stupid, I think China is most likely going to put its foot down and do what it can to make N. Korea behave, even abolishing the DPRK entirely and putting the South in control if that's what it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what the hell do you think is going to happen? they're going to march across the sea and take your Bible from you? if all those protests in the Middle East are going to "turn against us," it's only because for decades we've materially supported the dictators against which they are protesting. in that Bible of yours that you seem to think they're going to take from you, that's called "sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind."

Jesus, man, seriously, we gotta talk. i dunno what happened here but you gotta sit your little fanclub here down for a nice long chat. i think they've kind of gone off the rails. i know, you left them instructions, but, well, yeah, look at them man, it's just not workin' out.

as for China and its wacky little friend, i suspect there is a limit to China's patience with North Korea. the Chinese don't want a unified Korea as an American ally on its borders, but nor do they want North Korea threatening all their investments and rising power in East Asia. and while they might have the US by its economic balls, the position is the same in the other way. as John Maynard Keynes said:

The old saying holds. Owe your banker £1000 and you are at his mercy; owe him £1 million and the position is reversed.

China has too many investments here and too much at stake around the world to afford to go picking a fight with the US, and vice versa.

in any event, if there is a power struggle in North Korea after Kim 2.0 dies and Kim 3.0 fails to install properly, i imagine China will step in on its own before anyone else can do anything. a unified Korea isn't completely without opportunities for China. as the closest technologically advanced and wealthy nation, they'd be in prime position to help integrate what are essentially two different societies, and ingratiate themselves to the hypothetical unified Korea that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ unoservix. Even many South Koreans do not want a unified Korea. They fear they will have to spend a large amount of tax money trying to build up the derelict and broken North. The sad thing about China is that they dont care about any of North Koreas human rights abuses ( probably the worst in the world) but only care if it is a threat to stability in the region. Hopefully some sort of " Arab Spring Uprising will take place there."

We havent propped up all the dictators of those regions. We were very opposed to Qadaffi and Assad for example. I mean the terrorists dont attack us because we treated their countries bad. I mean we helped the Islamists keep the Russians out of Afghanistan and yet they turn on us anyway. That is only because they follow an unorthdox, extremist branch of Islam that says non Sunnis are the devil, whether we help them or hurt them

" What the Hell do you think is going to happen? Their going to march across the sea and take your bible away?"

You just never know.... <cocks shotgun>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are decidedly ignorant about history.

the US turned around and supported Qaddafi in the early years of the 2000s. you yourself have acknowledged this in the past in your threads where you weirdly try to stick up for the late colonel. he gave up his nuclear program, he opened up his other WMD programs to international inspectors, he made himself a willing tool of American anti-al-Qaeda efforts, and he reaped the rewards of rehabilitation in the West and commercial interests pouring money into his family's coffers. only recently did the West turn against him, and that was largely his fault by responding so heavy-handedly to the protestors that Western countries had no choice but to turn against him.

Assad is a more complex case, so i'll grant you that one. but between Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, among many others, the United States has long supported the authoritarian regimes there. the US only turned on Mubarak when it became obvious that he could not long hold on to power, because the US values stability in those countries more than it values individual dictators--but because those dictators brought stability for many years, the US has supported them. you can't deny this, or else you'd have to explain where else countries like Egypt got all that delicious military aid.

Afghanistan is not a case of "evil treacherous Muslims." we did not "help" the mujahideen out of the goodness of our hearts; we did so because they were fighting the Soviets, the Soviets were trying to prop up a Communist regime, and it was all part of the ongoing chess game with lives and countries that was the Cold War. the US cut its ties after the Soviets pulled out, Afghanistan descended into chaos, and the Taliban was the strongest group left standing when it was all done.

"the terrorists" is a highly misleading and disingenuous phrase. terrorists are different the world over. if you're talking about groups like al-Qaeda, they hate us for many reasons, but they only find sympathy among the vast majority of people in the Middle East--people who are not terrorists--because of American policies.

for example, al-Qaeda likes to scream that America is out to destroy Islam. we're, uh, not actually out to do that. but when we go and do stuff like invade Iraq on made-up pretexts, it gets a little easier to believe al-Qaeda when they say that America is out to destroy Islam. because from the perspective of Average Ahmed the Hypothetical Average Muslim Person in the Middle East, America is attacking a Muslim nation that had nothing to do with that great big terrorist attack from a couple years ago, so Average Ahmed starts thinking that maybe al-Qaeda is on to something about us.

if anything, you should be welcoming the Arab Spring wholeheartedly, because it does more damage to al-Qaeda than the American military could ever hope to do. for years, al-Qaeda has claimed that the only way Muslims can free themselves from their oppressive dictatorships at home is to go kill Americans abroad. and yet here we have three countries--Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya--where Muslims overthrew dictators themselves. in Tunisia and Egypt, it was done peacefully; in Libya, the West even came to help, and yet instead of claiming the Libyan revolution for themselves, it was Libyan fighters who did the bulk of the legwork in overthrowing their dictator. these three countries prove that you don't have to crash a plane into a building and kill a bunch of Americans to get rid of that dictator in your country that you hate. hell, it even shows that the Americans will abandon their dictators if your protests are strong enough. it is a very serious blow to al-Qaeda, more serious than the death of bin Laden or al-Awlaki. it disproves their ideology. leaders can be replaced; ideology cannot.

so the greatest defense America has against terrorists is to act in such a way that reasonable people do not believe unreasonable things about us. most of the world is reasonable, no matter what faith they profess, if any. people like bin Laden are not. the danger for America does not lie in the unreasonable people; it lies in the reasonable people starting to believe the unreasonable. and reasonable people wouldn't believe that America is out to conquer the Middle East and take away their Qur'ans and shit if we would stop acting like that's what we want to do.

and no, they are not coming to take your Bible. but judging by the posts you've made and the opinions you've expressed, it's not like you've been reading it anyway, so why you'd miss it is beyond me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh I was kidding about the whole "taking away bible" stuff

for the record have I made any unkind statements or something? Or just secular ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh I was kidding about the whole "taking away bible" stuff

for the record have I made any unkind statements or something? Or just secular ones

Just a word of advise: the debate boards are held to a higher standard of etiquette than other boards on this site. Jokes and kidding around in a place meant for serious debate is very much frowned upon, and in our eyes makes you seem immature and disrespectful, even though your intent may have been whimsy and fun-loving. This is not the place for Whimsy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, the Chinese have the US by the economic balls. China is rapidly growing its economy enough that it is no longer inconceivable that the Chinese could embargo the US. Hello Depression. This is one of many reasons the US government should take steps to discourage off-shoring of manufacturing.

That's the thing. Chinas economy is growing at an extraordinary rate, but for how long? Somehow, they've managed to create the largest real-estate bubble in the history of mankind, their inflation ratio is steeply rising, and so is the prices on commodities such as oil. Sounds familiar? That's pretty much the same recipe that drove the whole west into the ditch just a few years ago.

I'm not sure the US have reached the bottom yet. You might find yourself taking another fall. But so might very well China too, and the EU is allready hanging by the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...